IATF 16949 clause 10.2 - requirements following a customer complaint.

BriBri

Registered
Having recently been exposed to the requirements of IATF16949 - I'm being told that the way I would have complied with this requirement in regards to a customer complaint, does not fulfilled this requirement for AS9100 & ISO9001 is not acceptable any longer.
I would normally review the complain, do the containment, understand what the issue is - if it was an isolate issue, i.e. typo on the release documentation, issue the corrected documentation, check that our process for raising the documentation and generally close out the complaint. At the end of the month, and 6 months do analysis on all customer complaints and see if there were any trends. If a trend was observed I would initiate an "8D / Improvement project" to investigate and resolve the underlying problem. As "8D" will require business resource, it is important that it is seen as "business vital / critical" that the "8D" activity is fully supported and hence resources are made available and all departments buy into the business criticality.
Currently, I'm being told that this approach does not fulfil the requirements of IATF16949 clause 10.2 and that any customer complaint must be classified as a "Major" and subject to a full "8D" investigation. This has led to a situation where we have an "8D" running for a minor issue of a delivery turning up at a wrong address being treated the same as repeated contract review failings - this does not seem right to me.
Can somebody advise me on what is an acceptable way to fulfil this requirement which adds benefit to the business.
 

Funboi

On Holiday
Who is telling you this? Sounds bogus to me. Did they point to a specific statement in IATF or a CSR?
 

anneliesehuss

Starting to get Involved
I will say this, recently was audited and we received a minor NC because we did not request 8D to supplier for late delivery even though it did not affect our production or output to customer. Initially, we determined if 8D was required based on risk. Now, as a result of this NC, anytime there is a late delivery (that we record) we issue an 8D request.
Was the auditor right in his finding? I personally don't think so.
The whole premise of IATF is to consider risk and customer requirements. I don't think an 8D is necessary for every little thing, but ultimately, it's the auditor's interpretation of the clause that we need to account for.

My question is this, did the customer request an 8D?
If not, then I'd say it might not be needed.
 

Ron Rompen

Trusted Information Resource
The requirement is pretty explicit.......'10.2.1 a) React to the nonconformity and, AS APPLICABLE....'

It is up to you to determine when it is applicable to follow all the other steps below (or it may be within your CSR's). A full 8D investigation and Corrective Action is not always required (or appropriate).
Who has said that your current process does not fulfill the requirement for ISO 9001? (I can't speak for AS9100 as I am not familiar with that standard). Ask them to cite the specific clause(s) that you are not fulfilling.
 

BriBri

Registered
It sounds if my experience is a common one, I was not here at the time of the audit but the response from the people who were is that it was raised as an audit finding. I have not been able to track down the audit report and the CAPA we raised to address this is lacking in detail.
 

Tim_Caudill

Registered
A bit off topic, but trying to confirm what level of certification is needed to perform a QAV on your supplier? Is any needed?
 

Johnnymo62

Haste Makes Waste
A delivery at the wrong address/location/dock is a significant problem for automotive OEMs. My experience is that OEM docks do not have time to figure out where your delivery is really supposed to be. I think an 8D is appropriate even if it's just to document it wasn't your fault.

Welcome to automotive.
 

malasuerte

Quite Involved in Discussions
Having recently been exposed to the requirements of IATF16949 - I'm being told that the way I would have complied with this requirement in regards to a customer complaint, does not fulfilled this requirement for AS9100 & ISO9001 is not acceptable any longer.
I would normally review the complain, do the containment, understand what the issue is - if it was an isolate issue, i.e. typo on the release documentation, issue the corrected documentation, check that our process for raising the documentation and generally close out the complaint. At the end of the month, and 6 months do analysis on all customer complaints and see if there were any trends. If a trend was observed I would initiate an "8D / Improvement project" to investigate and resolve the underlying problem. As "8D" will require business resource, it is important that it is seen as "business vital / critical" that the "8D" activity is fully supported and hence resources are made available and all departments buy into the business criticality.
Currently, I'm being told that this approach does not fulfil the requirements of IATF16949 clause 10.2 and that any customer complaint must be classified as a "Major" and subject to a full "8D" investigation. This has led to a situation where we have an "8D" running for a minor issue of a delivery turning up at a wrong address being treated the same as repeated contract review failings - this does not seem right to me.
Can somebody advise me on what is an acceptable way to fulfil this requirement which adds benefit to the business.

This is beyond laughable.

First off, 10.2 is not an IATF clause. The clause is 10.2.6. The clause states:

The organization shall perform analysis on customer complaints and field failures, including any returned parts, and shall initiate problem solving and corrective action to prevent recurrence. Where requested by the customer, this shall include analysis of the interaction of embedded software of the organization's product within the system of the final customer's product. The organization shall communicate the results of testing/analysis to the customer and also within the organization.

Second, a non-conformance (Major) is written as a result of an audit (1st, 2nd, 3rd party); not if there is a customer fail. That would be your issue management process (non-conforming material process).


As mentioned above, regarding the 8D, the 8D process/requirement should be determined. You need to classify when the 8D is required. This may come as a result of customer requirements - so it could be possible that a customer requires the 8D for any delivery issues. If you agreed to that requirement, then you should meet it. By not capturing your process, you are keeping yourself open to a literal interpretation of "customer complaints".
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
I agree with malasuerte. You do not need to initiate 8D for every single internal issues, but you must define what triggers it. In our company, we put together KPI information in one place, and keep monitoring the numbers. These KPI items have both goals and the number that triggers the 8D. So, say for an example, our QA department verify packaging labels before the parts are placed in storage area, and our goal is that all the labels match the product, lot, and inspection log information at 100%, but sometimes operators can make errors, but if the accuracy is above 90%, it doesn't immediately trigger corrective action, but if the accuracy falls less than 90%, then it triggers corrective action (we also have other means and layers to detect this error, hence the trigger point of 90%). So, it's about setting the goals and triggers, and the risks associated with the type of failures. If it's specifically defined and objective, there shouldn't be an issue, but if the definition is vague, then that would become problematic. We do 8Ds for all customer complaints though. Also important is how the error is being analyzed and figuring out why it happened and why it could not have been prevented because superficial investigation will cause recurrence of the issue. Auditors are taking a closer look at customer complaints more and more in recent years in details (and also the customer scorecards and the CSR). My impression has been that not all auditors nit-pick on every details (although some auditors seem to be obsessed with certain topics that they're interested in and takes very long time to review it and skip everything else), but they're now looking at the risks as a supplier more. When there's multiple customer complaints of similar issues, that can be an indicator of issues, so they may dig into it. If the multiple score cards have not so good scores, that can be an indicator of issues, so they may dig into it. Are you also reviewing customer scorecards?

9.1.2.1 Customer Satisfaction - supplemental

Customer satisfaction with the organization shall be monitored through continual evaluation of internal and external performance indicators to ensure compliance to the product and process specifications and other customer requirements.

Performance indicators shall be based on objective evidence and include but not be limited to the following:

a) delivered part quality performance;
b) customer disruptions;
c) field returns, recalls, and warranty (where applicable);
d) delivery schedule performance (including incidents of premium freight);
e) customer notifications related to quality or delivery issues, including special status
The organization shall monitor the performance of manufacturing processes to demonstrate compliance with customer requirements for product quality and process efficiency. The monitoring shall include the review of customer performance data including online customer portals and customer scorecards, where provided.
 
Top Bottom